Of course there is a 'homo-erotic' (notice I avoid the word 'sexual') between the two...
I think that’s actually sophistry - “erotic” and ”eroticism“ are defined in sexual terms: “a state of sexual arousal or anticipation of such”, so to use either of them is still to highlight the relatoinship in sexual terms.
But that aside, to lead off with, “Of course…”, is to imply that the conclusion is self-evident (I think you’ve actually missed a word out, as you appear to be using “homo-erotic” as a noun, when you may have meant it to be an adjective); the fact is that the point isn’t self-evident to everyone, and just declaring it to be so, doesn’t actually make it so.
You also fail to address a point that has been made in this thread and others: a large part of the debate is that the series is not sexual at all, and does not require such a reading.
Freudian readings are by no means held universally to be valid or valuable; they are fine of you are a Freudian, not so good if you are a Jungian, and fairly meaningless if you look for systems of understanding which are based on scientific method and backed up by double-blind testing and thus don’t rely entirely on personal interpretation. Freud may be right, he may be wrong, but he was terrible
for actually providing concrete data to back up his assertions!
Adding a sub-text of sexuality to it – be that heterosexual or homosexual – is potentially an imposition of the individual reader; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
If applying sexual politics helps someone enjoy the books, or identify with the character(s), well and good. If someone reads the books and sees no sexual dimension to them, that’s fine too.